Dismissed

Ramesh S/O. Siddappa Hugarakar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2023WA/100218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three clubbed writ appeals challenging the exclusion of petitioners from a list of Drawing Teachers. Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that participants cannot challenge the validity of notifications governing the selection process after having participated. The court further rejected the contention that 50% SSLC marks were required under the applic

What did the court decide?

Appeals and pending applications are rejected and dismissed.

Ramesh S/O. Siddappa Hugarakar Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.

¶2

100089 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100218 OF 2023 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100542 OF 2022 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 100089 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶5

IN WA NO. 100218/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA HUGARAKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: POST CHATTARAKI, TQ: SINDAGI, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR-586215.

¶8

MURAGAYYAS S/O. JADEANDRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O: N.S.GOUDAN, AIKAR MALLIKARJUN NAGAR B.H.SHIVANANDMATH, BHAIRIDEVARKOPPA, HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580025.

¶9

BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MARIGOUDAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: PATTADAKALLU, TQ: BADAMI, DISTRICT: BAGALAKOT-587201.

¶10

VINAYAKA B V

¶11

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V

¶12

Date: 2023.11.28 12:23:36 +0530

¶13

SHIVANAND S/O. APPAYYA GOTHE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O: SHRIRAM NIVAS MISKIN, CHAL NEAR SIDDESHWAR SCHOOL, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR UNAKAL, TQ:HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581107.

¶14

SOMMANNA S/O. BASAVANTAPP KALLANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O : SOMMANNA B. KALLANAVAR, POST HARALAPUR, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581107.

¶15

BASAVARAJ S/O. VEERAPPA SUDI, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: SHARANABASAV TEMPLE, HIREMANNAPUR, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No.

¶17

100089 of 2023

¶18

SHIVANAND S/O. KANTHEPPA HADAPAD, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HADAPADAVAR ONI, ITAGI, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582241.

¶19

YALLAPPA S/O. HONNAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O:AT POST MALLAPUR, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.

¶20

MUTTANNA S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA GADAGI, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SHIVAPETI, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT : GADAG-582209.

¶21

SHANTAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA TIMMANAGOUDRA, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O : GANAGER ONI, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT : GADAG-582209.

¶22

NAGABHUSA S/O. ISHWAR SHINGTALUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NO. 34, SHRI LAXMI NIVASA, 9^TH WORD, SHANKAR COLONY, ANANTASHAYANA GUDI, HOSPET, TQ: HOSPET, DISTRICT : VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

¶23

SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. MAHESHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SHIVAPETE, 2^ND CROSS, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.

¶24

VIJAY S/O. KARIYAPPA KORANNAVAR., AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NEAR M.R.B.C.GATE ROAN, TQ: ROAN, DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.

¶25

VIJAY S/O. ISHWARAPPA SHINKTALUR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O:#34, SHRI LAXMI NIVAR, SHANKAR COLONY, ANANTA SHEYAN GUDI, TQ: HOSPETE, DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583201.

¶26

MAHANTAPPA S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA KUNDAGOL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: POST PASHUPATHIHAL TQ: KUNDAGOL, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-581113.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶28

SHIVAJI S/O GURUNATH LAMANI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O: MASABINAL ROAD, L.T.NO. 03, TQ: BASAVANABHAGEVADI, DISTRICT: VIJAYPURA-586203.

¶29

PANDURANG S/O VAMANRAO PADAKI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O: NEAR TELPHONE EXCHANGE, BARAPET MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586212.

¶30

AMBRESH S/O ADAPPA KUMBAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O: NERABENCHI, TQ:MUDDEBIHAR DISTRICT : VIJAYPUR-586245.

¶31

VERRAPPA S/O BASAPPA CHIKKOLI AGE: 45 YEAS, OCC:NIL R/O: RADDI STREET, NALAVATWAD, DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586124.

¶32

GURUPAD S/O DHARMANNA HARIJAN AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O: WANAKIHAL, POST HIREMURALA TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYPUR-586124.

¶33

YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AVARADI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: NEAR MAHADEV TEMPLE, MADAR GALLI POST RABKAVI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587314.

¶34

… APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALURU-560001.

¶38

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDA BENGALURU- 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶40

THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, #. 8, M.S.B-1,6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560052.

¶41

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING , BENGALURU-560001..

¶42

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (PRIMARY & HIGH SCHOOL EDUCTION) K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.103027/2022 (S/RES), DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶45

IN WA NO. 100542/2022

¶46

BETWEEN:

¶47

SANJEEVAKUMAR S/O VEERABHADRA TILAGAR AGE: 43 YERS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT POST M.K.HUBBALLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591118.

¶48

UMESHA S/O BASAVANNEPPA KUMBAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT POST KODACHAWAD, TA: KHANAPUR DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591131.

¶49

FAKKAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA MEDAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT POST GURUWAR PETH, MEDAR ONI CH KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL DISTRICT: BELAGAVI- 591115.

¶50

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶51

KALLAPPA S/O YALLAPPA ARER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT POST AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591112

¶52

MADIVALAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA BADIGER AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT POST MADHANABHAVI, TQ AND DISTRICT : DHARWAD-581105.

¶53

UMESH S/O ANNAGOUDA PATIL AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: AT HOSUR, POST YARANAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591221.

¶54

MOULI NALAVADE S/O SHREEPATIRAO NALAVADE AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O:POST NAYANAGA, TQ: BAILHONGAL DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶55

GOPAL S/O SHIVACHANDRA MADENNAVAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NILL R/O: AT HANDAYANWADI, POST CHINCHANI TQ: CHIKODI,DISTRICT :BELAGAVI-591287.

¶56

NOOR AHMED KANKARPEER S/O HATELSA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: NEAR TIPPU SULTAAN CIRCLE, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA.

¶57

PRAVEEN S/O VASANT PATTAR AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O:AT POST BELLADBAGEWADI TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591305.

¶58

MALAPURE SHASIKANT S/OKALLAPPA MALAPURE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O:AT CHINCHNI, POST CHINCHNI, DISTRICT :BELAGAVI-591287.

¶59

SURESH S/O MALLAPPA POLESI AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: NIL R/O: S M POLESI, AT POST HOLEALUR, TQ: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG-582203.

¶60

… APPELLANTS

¶61

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY & SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶62

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶63

AND:

¶64

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALURU-560001.

¶65

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDA BENGALURU- 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶66

THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, #. 8, M.S.B-1,6^TH AND 7^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560052.

¶67

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING , BENGALURU-560001.

¶68

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (PRIMARY & HIGH SCHOOL EDUCTION) K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.

¶69

…RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4, R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶71

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, PLEASE SET ASIDE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.104728/2021 (S-RES), DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN SO FOR AS APPELLANTS ARE CONCERN IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶72

IN WA NO. 100089/2023

¶73

BETWEEN:

¶74

MAHESH S/O. NINGAPPA SANDIGOD, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

¶75

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶76

R/O.MIG 1, 138, SIDDALING NAGAR, GADAG-582103.

¶77

BASAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA VANTELI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HOUSING BOARD COLLONI, AT POST YELABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236.

¶78

BHEEMARAYAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA PATTAR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. # 131, MARUTI GALLI, BAILHONGAL, AT POST. BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.

¶79

BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVABASAPPA VEERASHETTI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O.AT POST. NAGANUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.

¶80

RAVIKUMAR S/O. SHIDDAPPA KURDIKERI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. ACCHAVVA COLONY, 1ST CROSS, SAINAGAR, HUNAKAL, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031.

¶81

SHIVANAD S/O. BASAVANTAPPA HURAKADLI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O.AT. MACHAPUR, POST. BELAVANTAR, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-580012. …APPELLANTS

¶82

(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶83

AND:

¶84

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶85

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,

¶86

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶87

UDYOGA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶88

THE KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, # 8, M.S.B-16TH AND 7TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560052.

¶89

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIEF SECRETARY, FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶90

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION) K.R.CIRCLE, NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPNAGI RAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560001.

¶91

…RESPONDENTS

¶92

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5, SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶93

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, MAY PLEASE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO. 105152/2021(S/RES) DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶94

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶95

¶96

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶97

JUDGMENT

¶98

Writ Appeal No.100089/2023 has been filed by Sri.Mahesh and 05 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.105152/2021 and connected matters disposed of on 29.10.2022. Writ Appeal No.100218/2023 has been filed by Sri.Ramesh and 20 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.103027/2022 and connected matters. Writ Appeal No.100542/2023 has been filed by Sri.Sanjeevakumar and 11 others challenging the order passed in W.P.No.104728/2021.

¶99

As all the writ appeals are filed against the common order passed in the writ proceedings, accordingly the appeals are clubbed and disposed of by a common order.

¶100

By virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.105152/2021, the writ petition filed by the appellants herein came to be disposed of rejecting their contentions and refusing to set aside the notification dated 17.06.2014 and the notification for recruitment dated 03.11.2016. The petitioners have also challenged the Government Order of 16.10.2019, which was a clarificatory notification and the challenge to the same also came to be rejected. Petitioners had sought for

¶101

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶102

10 -

¶103

further relief by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to adopt selection method by taking into consideration 50 marks obtained in SSLC by while making appointments to the post of Drawing Teacher. The learned Single Judge, by a detailed consideration, has rejected the petition.

¶104

The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals are that the petitioners had claimed that they had requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and that they had applied for the said post pursuant to the notification dated 27.04.2011. At the first instance, it is submitted that the said notification was challenged before this Court and was set aside as per the order passed in W.P.No.34861-34871/2012 as there were certain ambiguities in prescribing the qualification for the post of Drawing Teacher as admitted by the authorities. It is further made out from the facts that subsequently, an amendment came to be made on 17.06.2014 to the Regulations prescribed for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher.

¶105

It is in pursuance of such Regulations that

¶106

notification came to be passed on 03.11.2016 seeking to

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶109

recruit and fill up the post of Drawing Teachers. In light of the earlier notification of 27.04.2011 having been set aside, those who had applied at the first instance were exempted from paying application fee and there was relaxation insofar as age limit. Accordingly, the petitioners have stated to have applied pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2016. It is an admitted fact that selection was on the basis of merit with no role assigned to the interview and accordingly, in the provisional selection list of 25.11.2021 petitioners having been excluded they are aggrieved by such selection. The said provisional selection list came to be affirmed by issuance of a final list.

¶110

The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking for the reliefs as referred to above. It is to be noticed that the petitioners while filing the writ petitions had challenged the notifications of 17.06.2014 as well as the notification dated 03.11.2016 issued by the authority as well as the notification of 16.10.2019. The primary contention of the petitioners is that in the selection process, the respondent – Karnataka Public Service Commission has not taken note of the marks in SSLC for preparation of merit list. It is submitted

¶111

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶112

that though the Recruitment Rules were amended in 2014, the 2011 Recruitment Rules must be read in conjunction with the Government Order of 21.03.2006 as well as the notification dated 21.05.1998 and if all such documents are read together, the select list ought to have been prepared by giving due weightage to the extent of 50% of marks obtained in SSLC.

¶113

The learned Single Judge, while considering the contentions of the petitioners, has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners having taken part in the selection process by filing their applications pursuant to the notification of 03.11.2016 and not having been selected, have sought to challenge the very Regulations pursuant to which the notification dated 03.11.2016 was passed and such challenge is not maintainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H.C.Pradeep Kumar Rai and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in 2015 (11)

¶114

SCC 493.

¶115

It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that there has been a change in the qualification between the earlier notification passed on 27.04.2011 which was passed in

¶116

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶117

13 -

¶118

terms of the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 2011 as well as the changes made in the notification of 17.06.2014 which was reflected in the notification of 03.11.2016. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the amended Regulations of 17.06.2014 was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.21856/2017 and connected matters and accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not find any legal infirmity in the notification of 03.11.2016 following the Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating to Recruitment of 17.06.2014. The Single Judge has also noticed the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 which clarifies that the marks obtained in the public examination should alone be considered for purpose of the appointment process and records a finding that the G.O. does not alter or modify the qualification prescribed, while holding so, the writ petitions came to be rejected.

¶119

It must be noticed that the case put forward by the petitioners in the writ proceedings is a challenge to the notification dated 07.06.2014, which are the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations as well as Notification issued pursuant to such Regulations on 03.11.2016. It is a settled legal position that once candidates who have applied for recruitment

¶120

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶121

and notification is issued pursuant to the recruitment Rules the candidates cannot subsequently after the selection process is over, turn around and challenge the very validity of the Rules pursuant to which notification for recruitment has been issued. The said legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of Bihar and Others¹ .

¶122

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are giving up their attack insofar as the validity of the Regulations of 17.06.2014 as well as the Notification of 03.11.2016 and would contend that even as per the existing recruitment Regulations and the Notification of 03.11.2016, the authorities have not taken the selection criteria into account, it cannot be missed that the case put forward in the writ proceedings is an attack to the validity of the Cadre and Recruitment Notification on 17.06.2014 as well as the Recruitment Notification on 03.11.2016. Accordingly insofar as the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioners cannot turn around and question the validity of the

¶123

1 (2017) 4 SCC 357

¶124

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶125

Recruitment Notification pursuant to which they themselves have participated requires affirmation.

¶126

Insofar as their contention that even if Regulation of 17.06.2014 is taken note of and the Notification of 03.11.2016 is accepted, the selection process ought to have taken note of 50% of marks from the S.S.L.C. which is an interpretation they have placed on the basis of the earlier Cadre and Recruitment Rules cannot be taken note of or considered as the petitioners seek to set up a new case in the present appeals which can not be permitted. The case put forward by the petitioners being clear from the prayers sought for in the writ petitions they cannot seek to make out a different case in the appeal proceedings.

¶127

Even if the contention relating to 50% of marks in the S.S.L.C. is considered, the reading of Regulation of 17.06.2014 and Notification of 03.11.2016 do not permit taking note of 50% of marks of S.S.L.C. The learned Single Judge has applied his mind and analyzed such contention while referring to both the earlier recruitment Rules of 2011 as well as subsequent recruitment Rules of 17.06.2014. The analysis

¶128

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶129

16 -

¶130

made in paragraphs no.14 to 16 as regards such aspect cannot be interfered with. The contention of counsel for the petitioners regarding S.S.L.C. marks is based on an interpretation on the basis of the earlier regulation which according to them continues in force and are not amended by the subsequent amendments. However the said finding of the learned Single Judge being one that is plausible it will not be appropriate to set aside such conclusion merely because in appeal proceedings the Court may decide to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts.

¶131

Insofar as the further contention that the notification issued relating to the qualification on 16.10.2019 has changed the Rules of the game as the same has been passed subsequent to the recruitment process having been initiated. It must be noticed that the Government Order on 16.10.2019 merely states that while considering the Diploma qualification, the marks of 1^st , 2^nd and 5^th year annual examination conducted by the University will only be taken note of. It does not in any way to change the qualification as contained in the Regulation and in the notification of 03.11.2016. No doubt the said qualification refers to the

¶132

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13679-DB WA No. 100218 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100542 of 2022, WA No. 100089 of 2023

¶133

marks to be taken note of for Diploma and such clarification is in consonance with the broader qualification regarding having cleared the Diploma examination.

¶134

Though the counsel for the petitioners would contend that the amendment and qualification even if accepted do not take away from the requirement of taking 50% marks of the S.S.L.C. course, we do not find any such requirement plainly flowing from a reading of the recruitment rule 17.06.2014 or the notification of 03.11.2016. Further, notification and recruitment regulation of 03.11.2016 is in consonance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. Accordingly we find no infirmity with the order of learned Single Judge and the appeals are rejected.

¶135

Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶136

Sd/JUDGE

¶137

BSR & BVV / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

¶138

Sd/JUDGE

Ramesh S/O. Siddappa Hugarakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O. Siddappa Hugarakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Rajendra S/O a. Doddabasappa Vs Shalini Rajaneesh

M/S Karthika Readymade Garments, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Shafiya Begum W/O Anwarsab Shaikh Vs Shri.Ashok S/O Rango Desai

Mahesh S/O Ningappa Sandigod Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ashwini Vs Shri Gautam

Honnappa S/O Somanna Nayak Vs Raju Bhika Marathe